Friday, December 07, 2018
Triggered: A Defense of Theatrical Content Warnings
www.newcitystage.com: Trigger and content warnings: they are a topic of debate in all kinds of circles and have popped up frequently in my own circle largely because of the play “Downstate” at Steppenwolf Theatre Company.
There is a lot of criticism targeted at trigger warnings. They can be seen as infantilizing an audience. Yet when it comes to offering people a chance to consider their own feelings, it shows that the theater takes respect of its audience into consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Trigger warnings are tricky, not because I believe that they give away too much of the show, but because they may not be able to give enough. Saying “Trigger warning sexual assault” is a very broad thing and it may be that the nuances of the depiction in one play hit hard while in another they do not seem so personal. Unfortunately, I believe this is that way they will remain and while it will be rough I think that is ok. Trigger warnings may get better, but there is no way to tell anyone how exactly it will hit them and there is no way to hit the exact specifics without giving the dialog and the stage directions and the emotional caliber of the actors voice. You could have been told that “Downstate” showed dismissal of a victim and still chosen to see it think you would be okay, but be thrown off by this one specific portrayal due to this one actors choices. I think trigger warnings are necessary to give the audience a chance to decide whether or not they should challenge themselves in that certain way. For me, trigger warnings are not a discouragement but a chance to brace my emotions while still keeping my mind open. It’s a way to actually receive the educational aspects of theater without letting my emotional reactions completely overwhelm.
I think this company is doing a good job at balancing this line that people think trigger warnings have to tip toe around. I have a brain and eye condition where I cannot process flashing lights, I have passed out when in a theater with strobe lights. So I always make sure to check the warnings before going into a show to see if strobes are used and then ask an usher specifically where in the show so I can be prepared and put my head down if necessary. This should be the same with any form of content. Having it there for someone to seek out, and then inquire further if they want to is all that is needed. I like the idea of the opt in and opt out option that they are working towards. Warnings are not a big deal, and there shouldn't be this hesitation to make sure no one is offered knowing the content of the show, because someone will need that heads up.
The main idea of trigger warnings is to let the audience know what they are getting into. A lot of patrons do not bother to take the time to read the trigger warning signs that are posted on doors and around the theater. People cannot tell exactly how they would react to things unless they are placed in the situation themselves. I believe that the idea of having the trigger warnings explained in the emails sent out, play synopsis is a great idea. It also allows audience members to pick what they want to watch and be a part of. I honestly do not see another way of making trigger warnings more effective. There’s no amount of preparation that theater can do to make their audience be more aware of themselves and how they react to things. The recognition of emotions and limits is left to the audience members. What the theater can do is educate their patrons to be more aware of the trigger warnings and take them more seriously.
Like Simone said, trigger warnings can be tough cause they risk giving away a lot of the show. For example, if there’s warnings for gunshots, audience members might go in waiting for the gunshot the whole time. That idea, however, operates under the assumption that anyone actually reads trigger and content warnings before walking into a theatre. Most of the time when I’m seeing a show, especially at CMU, I know what I’m getting myself into because I know at least at a basic level what the show is about. That can be more difficult when there are new works produced at theatre companies, because you would not always know what to expect. That all being said, it’s very important to have content warnings for the people that do actually care, because usually the people that are going to get triggered by content are the ones that take the time to check the warnings. For instance, if you’re sensitive to strobe or you’re allergic to dirt or something, you’re gonna check that sign pretty closely before locking yourself in a big dark room with 1000 other people that you have to climb over to exit.
I have heard many sides and arguments throughout this debate, and I always think that is comes down to if you might cause medical or physical harm to someone coming to see your theatre piece, you should warn them beforehand. I think that if we are going to agree that we should warn about strobes for those with seizure disorders, we should also warn about language, themes, and otherwise potentially disturbing content for those with PTSD or other mental illnesses that might affect someone. I think educating audience members about what, in general, they are going to see, does not do any harm, but could do a lot of good. Trigger warnings can often mean the difference between a fun night at the theatre and a crisis that leads to a pretty upsetting night. I am a huge supporter of trigger warnings, and think they are an important part of a healthy theatre experience.
If there are any elements of a production that could harm an audience member, there should be trigger warnings. If you are inviting people into a space to experience a show, you should make sure they feel safe and protected. You never know the health risks and issues any patron has, so it’s better to be safe than have to stop the performance due to a crisis. When it comes to content, the idea of putting it in the play synopsis is a good idea because you know most people will read it. It’s just physical issues that could be triggered, mental issues are just as important. Theater should always being pushing the envelope on conversations, but it should be done safely and respectfully to the patrons helping contribute to what we do in the business.
It’s wild to me that trigger warnings are such a hot topic for debate. It seems like they should be a non-issue. I’m glad to see articles in defense of trigger or content warnings, since a lot of the one’s I’ve seen lately have been against the practice. But I’m really not sure why everyone is so up in arms. Does anyone really want surprise pedophilia? I mean, I’m not even triggered by that content, but I would still want to know that that’s what the play was about when I went in. Actually, I’d be pretty angry if there was pedophilia in a show and I didn’t know until it was revealed in the scene. Also, trigger and content warnings for audiences do a lot for helping the performers. It prevents disruptions, and creates a safer environment for the actors to act. I see no reason why trigger and content warnings shouldn’t be included in a show like this.
This is a very interesting article. I think that trigger warnings can be relevant and important, but can be overused. For example, I think that Detroit ‘67 trigger warning of racially charged/ sensitive language could have been handled by having just a blanket rating, and that having the trigger warning, did not infantilize the audience, but allowed them to prepare more, taking away some of the impact of the dialect and language used in the show. I think may trigger warnings that appear on the Carnegie Mellon Campus when it comes to theatre, including School of Drama and Scotch and Soda productions, could be handled by a blanket rating (similar to movies). I don’t think that trigger warnings are inherently bad, because in instances like sexual assault it should be made very clear.
I am always for trigger warnings because I think they do nothing for the people who don't need them and they do everything for the people that do. I am not a person who needs trigger warnings. I don't care if there are strobes or sexual content or anything else because I have not experienced any trauma or suffer from anything that would make the show hard to watch. I think it is funny that people get so upset about them because they are basically the same as movie ratings and we are so adjusted to that that we don't care. When we go see movies we prepare for what we are seeing. It gets put on a huge screen in front of us before we watch the movie and no one ever complains that that ruins any surprise. There is a deeper bias against people who do not want to adjust here and I just don't think there is any place for that in theater.
To me, the debate around trigger warnings reminds me about conversations around mental illness in general we used to have in high school. For example the message “you would never tell someone with a broken arm to just “get over it” so why would you tell someone suffering from a mental illness that,” can be expanded to this situation. You would never tell someone with any eye condition who is sensitive to strobe lights to just “ get over it” so why would you to someone with ptsd. The absence of trigger warnings is just telling an audience member who may have ptsd to just “get over it” which is inappropriate and ignorant. What this really comes down to is explaining mental illness is real, valid, and can be helped with treatment. So when someone needs a warning to help out, no matter the reason, give it to them in the clearest and most obvious ways.
This is a tricky issue, but I feel like content warnings of this type are very important when producing a large show. When performing a show with sensitive material, and with such a large and diverse group of people gathering to see a show that they may not know the full details of, it’s very likely that someone could be exposed to material that is harmful to them personally, whether that would be something like a strobe light to someone with epilepsy or a reenactment of a triggering experience. I understand people’s reluctance to spoil the content of a show but I think that so much of our jobs revolve around safety for everyone involved in a production, and that should include warnings to make sure the audience is aware of what they’re getting into. Many shows are meant to be challenging to watch and force us to confront ideas that we don’t want to, but that’s not the same thing as harming more vulnerable audience members.
Post a Comment